Learn how intensive intervention, through the data-based individualization (DBI) process, helps students with severe and persistent learning or behavioral needs.

What is Intensive Intervention
Learn how NCII defines intensive intervention and the steps of the data-based individualization (DBI) process.

Intensive Intervention & MTSS
Learn how intensive intervention fits within a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS).

Intensive Intervention & Special Education
Learn how intensive intervention supports the identification, individualized education program (IEP) development, and provision of specially designed instruction for students with disabilities.

Review and compare the technical adequacy and implementation requirements of academic and behavioral assessments (screening and progress monitoring) and interventions to select tools that meet your needs.

Identifying Assessments
Learn about and access resources related to the different types of assessments (screening, progress monitoring, and diagnostic assessments) that are part of the data-based individualization (DBI) process.

Sample Lessons & Activities
Find sample lessons and instructional videos focused on supporting students with mathematics difficulties in the areas of number systems/counting, basic facts, place value concepts, place value computation, fractions as numbers, and computation of fractions.

Sample Strategies
Find behavioral strategies organized around antecedent modification, self-management, and reinforcement to support teachers working with students with primary academic deficits and challenging behaviors.

Taxonomy of Intervention IntensityLearn how the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity can be used to evaluate and intensify interventions to meet student needs and find resources to support implementation.

Find tools, training materials, videos, webinars, and other resources to support you in your role implementing intensive intervention.

State and Local Leaders
Find tools and resources to support implementation of intensive intervention for school, district, and state administrators and staff responsible for leading MTSS and special education initiatives.

Educators
Find tools and resources to support general and special education teachers, interventionists, school psychologists, school counselors, and other school-based personnel working with students with intensive academic and behavioral needs.

Trainers and Coaches
Find tools and resources to help trainers and coaches support professional learning about intensive intervention.

Higher Education Faculty
Find tools and resources to help college and university faculty support developing, modifying, or enhancing coursework and field experiences related to implementation of intensive intervention.

The Children’s Educational Services, Inc. (CES) Standard Reading Passages (SRP) system includes grade level passages for teachers and other school personnel to use in screening to establish student achievement in reading, to set annual goals for those students, to monitor their progress and to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction for the purpose of modifying instruction when indicated. An online scoring platform with reporting features for the Standard Reading Passages is available through EdSpring; TIES@k12.mn.us

The essential procedures used in CES SRP are the same as those developed by researchers at the University of Minnesota beginning in 1977 and the years following. The reading passages were initially developed in 1988 and disseminated as the Standard Reading Passages.

Assessment Format:

One-to-one

Administration Time:

10 minutes per student

Scoring Time:

5 minutes per student

Scoring Method:

Raw score is count of number of words read correctly and incorrectly in one minute of reading aloud.

The following disaggregated reliability data are provided for context and did not factor into the Reliability rating.

Type of Reliability

Subgroup

Age or Grade

n

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Internal Consistency

Black

2

19

0.96

0.91-0.99

Internal Consistency

Black

3

20

0.82

0.59-0.93

Internal Consistency

Black

4

25

0.90

0.78-0.96

Internal Consistency

Black

5

25

0.92

0.83-0.97

Internal Consistency

Black

6

9

0.98

0.92-1.00

Validity

Grade

1

2

3

4

5

6

Rating

d

d

d

d

d

d

Description of each criterion measure used and explanation as to why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool:

The Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) was used as the outcome measure. Published by the NWEA the MAP is regarded as a highly valid and reliable measure of broad reading ability. The NWEA website states, “Our tools are trusted by educators in 140 countries and more than half the schools in the US” which indicates it can be considered an excellent outcome measure for classification studies on the Oral Reading measure studied here. See https://www.nwea.org/normative-data-rit-scores/ for more information. The MAP is an external measure.

A second criterion used in our analysis is the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) and reading. The MCA is the state accountability test for Minnesota and has been established by the Minnesota Department of Education to be a highly reliable and valid measure or reading. See http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/dse/test/mn/Tech/ for more technical information. The MCA is an external measure.

Description of the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted:

For the Concurrent and Predictive validity analyses for Passage Reading and MAP there was a total sample of 9,410 students (grades 1-6). Demographic data indicated 48.4% of the sample was female, 12.4% was special education, 24.0% received Title services, 7.5% was served in a gifted program, 38.2% received free or reduced lunch, and 5.1% received ELL service. Ethnic percentages for this sample were 1.3% for American Indian, 4.9% for Asian American, 10.3% for Hispanic American, 7.7% for Black American, and 75.8% for White American.

For the Concurrent and Predictive validity analyses for Passage Reading and MCA there was a total sample of 11,094 students (grades 3-6). Demographic data indicated 48.2% of the sample was female, 12.4% was special education, 27.2% received Title services, 9.3% was served in a gifted program, 27.6% received free or reduced lunch, and 7.7% received ELL service. Ethnic percentages for this sample were 2.6% for American Indian, 4.0% for Asian American, 9.4% for Hispanic American, 12.2% for Black American, and 71.8% for White American.

Description of the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity:

Two types of validity analysis were conducted; Concurrent and Predictive. The Concurrent study used Pearson Product Moment Correlational analysis to examine the relationship between Passage Reading (Words Read Correctly) and the MAP and the MCA. All measures were administered in the Spring of 2017. The Predictive study used Pearson Product Moment Correlational analysis to examine the relationship between Passage Reading (Words Read Correctly) and the MAP and the MCA. Passage Reading was administered in the Winter of 2017 and the criterion measures of MAP and MCA were administered in the Spring of 2017, approximately three months later.

Validity for the performance level score (e.g., concurrent, predictive, evidence based on response processes, evidence based on internal structure, evidence based on relations to other variables, and/or evidence based on consequences of testing), and the criterion measures.

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Concurrent

1 (Spring)

MAP (Spring)

1,212

0.75

0.72-0.77

Concurrent

2 (Spring)

MAP (Spring)

2,038

0.80

0.78-0.82

Concurrent

3 (Spring)

MAP (Spring)

2,108

0.76

0.73-0.77

Concurrent

4 (Spring)

MAP (Spring)

2,004

0.72

0.70-0.74

Concurrent

5 (Spring)

MAP (Spring)

1,699

0.66

0.63-0.69

Concurrent

6 (Spring)

MAP (Spring)

372

0.62

0.55-0.68

Concurrent

3 (Spring)

MCA (Spring)

3,751

0.77

0.76-0.78

Concurrent

4 (Spring)

MCA (Spring)

3,709

0.74

0.73-0.75

Concurrent

5 (Spring)

MCA (Spring)

3,053

0.69

0.67-0.71

Concurrent

6 (Spring)

MCA (Spring)

634

0.68

0.64-0.72

Predictive

1 (Winter)

MAP (Spring)

1,191

0.71

0.68-0.74

Predictive

2 (Winter)

MAP (Spring)

2,024

0.79

0.77-0.81

Predictive

3 (Winter)

MAP (Spring)

1,972

0.75

0.73-0.77

Predictive

4 (Winter)

MAP (Spring)

2,069

0.69

0.67-0.71

Predictive

5 (Winter)

MAP (Spring)

1,736

0.65

0.62-0.68

Predictive

6 (Winter)

MAP (Spring)

487

0.58

0.52-0.64

Predictive

3 (Winter)

MCA (Spring)

3,638

0.76

0.75-0.77

Predictive

4 (Winter)

MCA (Spring)

3,770

0.73

0.72-0.75

Predictive

5 (Winter)

MCA (Spring)

3,195

0.68

0.66-0.70

Predictive

6 (Winter)

MCA (Spring)

487

0.58

0.52-0.64

Results for other forms of validity (e.g. factor analysis) not conducive to the table format:

None provided

Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool:

Validity coefficients for both concurrent and predictive validity are typically high. The median correlation coefficient for concurrent validity is 0.73 and is 0.70 for predictive validity.

Disaggregated Validity

The following disaggregated validity data are provided for context and did not factor into the Validity rating.

Type of Validity

Subgroup

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Concurrent

Black

1 (Spring)

MAP (Spring)

80

0.72

0.60-0.81

Concurrent

Black

2 (Spring)

MAP (Spring)

208

0.78

0.72-0.83

Concurrent

Black

3 (Spring)

MAP (Spring)

133

0.70

0.60-0.78

Concurrent

Black

4 (Spring)

MAP (Spring)

146

0.75

0.67-0.81

Concurrent

Black

5 (Spring)

MAP (Spring)

118

0.62

0.50-0.72

Concurrent

Black

3 (Spring)

MCA (Spring)

452

0.79

0.75-0.82

Concurrent

Black

4 (Spring)

MCA (Spring)

497

0.74

0.70-0.78

Concurrent

Black

5 (Spring)

MCA (Spring)

361

0.70

0.64-0.75

Predictive

Black

1 (Winter)

MAP (Spring)

78

0.72

0.59-0.81

Predictive

Black

2 (Winter)

MAP (Spring)

205

0.80

0.75-0.85

Predictive

Black

3 (Winter)

MAP (Spring)

127

0.67

0.56-0.76

Predictive

Black

4 (Winter)

MAP (Spring)

155

0.70

0.61-0.77

Predictive

Black

5 (Winter)

MAP (Spring)

113

0.59

0.46-0.70

Predictive

Black

3 (Winter)

MCA (Spring)

436

0.77

0.73-0.81

Predictive

Black

4 (Winter)

MCA (Spring)

498

0.71

0.66-0.75

Predictive

Black

5 (Winter)

MCA (Spring)

364

0.69

0.63-0.74

Concurrent

Hispanic

1 (Spring)

MAP (Spring)

134

0.76

0.68-0.82

Concurrent

Hispanic

2 (Spring)

MAP (Spring)

225

0.81

0.76-0.85

Concurrent

Hispanic

3 (Spring)

MAP (Spring)

180

0.80

0.74-0.85

Concurrent

Hispanic

4 (Spring)

MAP (Spring)

176

0.72

0.64-0.79

Concurrent

Hispanic

5 (Spring)

MAP (Spring)

173

0.66

0.57-0.74

Concurrent

Hispanic

6 (Spring)

MAP (Spring)

62

0.58

0.39-0.73

Concurrent

Hispanic

3 (Spring)

MCA (Spring)

329

0.83

0.79-0.86

Concurrent

Hispanic

4 (Spring)

MCA (Spring)

321

0.78

0.73-0.82

Concurrent

Hispanic

5 (Spring)

MCA (Spring)

306

0.66

0.59-0.72

Concurrent

Hispanic

6 (Spring)

MCA (Spring)

77

0.64

0.49-0.76

Predictive

Hispanic

1 (Winter)

MAP (Spring)

134

0.72

0.63-0.79

Predictive

Hispanic

2 (Winter)

MAP (Spring)

226

0.79

0.74-0.83

Predictive

Hispanic

3 (Winter)

MAP (Spring)

172

0.82

0.76-0.86

Predictive

Hispanic

4 (Winter)

MAP (Spring)

175

0.68

0.59-0.75

Predictive

Hispanic

5 (Winter)

MAP (Spring)

170

0.65

0.55-0.73

Predictive

Hispanic

3 (Winter)

MCA (Spring)

329

0.84

0.81-0.87

Predictive

Hispanic

4 (Winter)

MCA (Spring)

319

0.76

0.71-0.80

Predictive

Hispanic

5 (Winter)

MCA (Spring)

306

0.66

0.59-0.72

Predictive

Hispanic

6 (Winter)

MCA (Spring)

77

0.65

0.50-0.76

Results for other forms of disaggregated validity (e.g. factor analysis) not conducive to the table format:

None provided

Sample Representativeness

Grade

1

2

3

4

5

6

Data

Local with Cross-Validation

Local with Cross-Validation

Local with Cross-Validation

Local with Cross-Validation

Local with Cross-Validation

Local with Cross-Validation

Primary Classification Accuracy Sample

Representation: National (East North Central). 17 school districts in Minnesota with 22,842 students administered the Oral Reading Passages.